Whitehouse Exposes Unequal Accountability at DOJ After Bondi Testimony

WASHINGTON — Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sharply criticized the Justice Department this week, accusing it of enforcing accountability unevenly after testimony by Attorney General Pam Bondi that he said contained demonstrably false statements to Congress, even as the department pursued charges against others for similar conduct.

Speaking during a tense committee session, Mr. Whitehouse described what he called a striking contrast between the department’s actions on consecutive days. One day earlier, the Justice Department had arraigned a former F.B.I. director on charges related to allegedly making untruthful statements to Congress. The following day, Mr. Whitehouse said, the attorney general herself appeared before the same committee and made claims that could be easily checked — and shown to be false.

“To me, yesterday was an awful day in the history of this committee,” Mr. Whitehouse said, calling the episode emblematic of a growing double standard in how truthfulness before Congress is treated, depending on who is speaking.

At issue was Ms. Bondi’s assertion that Mr. Whitehouse and the committee’s ranking member had received political contributions from an individual she described as a close confidant of Jeffrey Epstein. Mr. Whitehouse said the claim was untrue and verifiable through public records maintained by the Federal Election Commission.

“This is not a question of nuance,” he said. “It’s a yes-or-no question. Did I receive those contributions or didn’t I?” He added that even a junior staff member could have checked the allegation before it was made publicly.

The Justice Department declined to comment on the specifics of Mr. Whitehouse’s remarks. Ms. Bondi has not publicly retracted the statement.

Mr. Whitehouse’s criticism went beyond the campaign finance allegation. He also accused the attorney general of failing to correct or clarify what he described as multiple false statements previously made to the committee by the current F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, regarding his grand jury testimony in the investigation into classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Mr. Patel had told lawmakers that he could not discuss his testimony because it had been sealed by the Justice Department and because a court order barred him from doing so. But the chief judge of the federal district court in Washington later stated publicly that no such court order existed, and that nothing prevented Mr. Patel from discussing his testimony.

That left, Mr. Whitehouse said, two statements — that the testimony was sealed by the department and that it was subject to a court order — in serious doubt. When Mr. Patel was pressed further, he said he would not answer additional questions because his grand jury transcript had since been publicly released with the cooperation of the Justice Department.

“That, again, is a yes-or-no question,” Mr. Whitehouse said. “Either the transcript has been publicly released or it hasn’t.” According to the senator, no such public release has occurred.

Mr. Whitehouse said the attorney general had an opportunity during her appearance to clarify whether the department had sealed the testimony or released any transcript. Instead, he argued, she declined to provide answers that might have resolved the discrepancies, leaving the F.B.I. director “completely exposed” to accusations of misleading Congress.

The episode has become part of a broader debate among Democrats about politicization within the Justice Department and the erosion of consistent standards of accountability. Senator Adam Schiff of California, another member of the Judiciary Committee, has raised parallel concerns about transparency and oversight, particularly regarding the handling of sensitive investigative materials related to Epstein.

Mr. Schiff has called for an independent audit by the department’s inspector general to review how such files are managed, including decisions about redactions and disclosures. He argues that without independent verification, the public cannot know whether information is being withheld to protect privacy and ongoing investigations — or to shield powerful figures from embarrassment or scrutiny.

“Can we trust the Justice Department to manage these sensitive files honestly?” Mr. Schiff has asked. “Or is political influence shaping what the public gets to see?”

Supporters of the administration have dismissed the criticism as partisan, arguing that Democrats are seeking to undermine officials aligned with President Trump. They note that allegations of false statements must be evaluated carefully and through established legal processes.

But for Mr. Whitehouse, the concern is institutional rather than partisan. He said Congress cannot credibly enforce standards of honesty if those standards apply only selectively.

“I don’t know if this committee is going to take itself seriously enough to treat false statements as serious matters irrespective of who made them,” he said. “But the contrast could not be more stark.”

The dispute underscores a larger challenge facing Congress and the Justice Department alike: maintaining public confidence in institutions meant to operate above politics. As lawmakers press for clarity and accountability, the question remains whether the department will apply the same rules to its highest officials as it does to everyone else.